I also think that anyone who supports traditional marriage should support traditional male and females roles. I mean if you want to get down to traditional marriage you need to look at what it was. We as a country in whole in no way hold up traditional marriage or shouldn't.

Actually I am someone who supports traditional marriage but is opposed to males and females following traditional gender roles. Gender roles should be thrown out the door. Gender roles and marriage have nothing to do with each other as far as I am concerned. I know many, myself included that have crossed over and done things typically reserved for the other gender before. I have no problem with that. In our society today you are not going to find many males and females that stick to their defined roles.

Traditional marrage as the united states knows it also tries to stop a person who is born both sexes from marrying. Do you support that?

Well if you are referring to those individuals who are physically/biologically born with the hormones and reproductive organs of both sexes then it would depend on the sex that individual chooses. I know most have surgeries to go with the sex they feel most comfortable as. In the end they would have to choose some sex to put down on the marriage license, and it could be the one listed on their birth certificate if they never go and change their anatomy around. I doubt even in the few states that have gay marriage that you can get away with not putting any sex at all even given that situation.

What if they don't want to choose a sex? Who says that they should have to? Why should they have to? They aren't one sex. And they may not have a "comfortable" sex. They could be gender fluid and therefore would want to stay both sexes or feel that they are both sexes gender wise. Why do you get to say that they should choose? Who are you to say that they should choose? They are born both sexes and they should be able to to stay that way if they want to. People that have tried to install laws like that have tried deciding for the people by thier chromosomes. Others have tried to do it based on thier hormones. Nothing works because it's up to them to decide thier gender and they may fell like both genders. They shouldn't have to choose for your benifit of wanting a "traditional" marrage.

People should start reconizing that there is more than one sex and that the body's gender doesn't always match up with the sex.

In fact laws like that allow parents to mutilate the genitals of their baby. Do you support parents being able to choose the gender?

What if they are intersexed and the parents do choose the gender. They choose girl because that is the easiest to make them into, but they aren't a girl. They knew that they were a man even if they didn't find this fact out. Although laws like the traditional marrage laws would prevent them from marrying another female because they were made into a female at birth? Do you support that?

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but if the parents do not feel comfortable making that decision then wait until the child is older and make the decision before puberty sets in and some of the physical changes are irreversible. But I could see the parents choosing to avoid a lot of conflict in the child's life if that the child may find that decision far too difficult to make for themselves. I would probably recommend go with the gender that is most dominate in accordance with the physical anatomy of the child, as that would mean less surgery to correct the problem. That is if the parents choose at birth, instead of waiting till the child is older and can decide for themselves which to be. But I do believe at some point the child has to decide if I am one gender or the other, because you cannot be genderless for life. I would personally prefer if the child made that decision, since there is always a chance of error in the parents choosing. As to what I do not support, I do not support two individuals of the same sex marrying, regardless of circumstances. Adjusting the laws to accommodate these individuals would be far too difficult in my opinion, because if you did not make them choose a gender then that could possibly lead the way for homosexual marriage as far as the marriage issue is concerned, and I do not agree with that one bit. Gays and lesbians would be in an outrage if you allowed those intersexed individuals an exception and not them, and while intersex may be an actual condition that is out of that individuals control, I do not believe homosexuality is natural, something you are born as, and do not deserve the marriage rights that heterosexual couples have. But as far as I am aware the instances of intersex children being born is a rather low rate. And I mean fully intersexed. If proof could be given to determine genetically that this person was born XY yet has the appearance of XX then I would consider an exception, but only if gays and lesbians were still restricted, since I consider their lifestyles a choice, whereas intersexed individuals have an actual genetic condition. But marriage between XX and XX and XY and XY to me is not natural in any way.

I'm sorry, I know you're getting a lot of comments about your stance on same sex couples getting the same legal rights as opposite sex couples, but I am a bit confused by your reasoning. Someone a while back asked you why you oppose the same legal rights being given to two men or two women, and your answer read to me as "I am against it because I don't like the idea of it. It's been this way for a long time and I don't like the idea of the law changing to include more people."
I'm sure I'm just not reading it right, or something. Can you try to explain your stance with some reasons that can't be summed up as "I don't like the idea because I don't like the idea." ?

I'm sorry, I know you're getting a lot of comments about your stance on same sex couples getting the same legal rights as opposite sex couples, but I am a bit confused by your reasoning. Someone a while back asked you why you oppose the same legal rights being given to two men or two women, and your answer read to me as "I am against it because I don't like the idea of it. It's been this way for a long time and I don't like the idea of the law changing to include more people."
I'm sure I'm just not reading it right, or something. Can you try to explain your stance with some reasons that can't be summed up as "I don't like the idea because I don't like the idea." ?

That's alright. I have had to go back and forth on this issue more so than any other in my lifetime, which I guess is kinda strange since I'm usually not a social issues person even if I agree with socially conservative positions. But to explain, and I agree my earlier explanation was rather vague, but everything explodes when I give my in-depth answer as to why I am opposed to gay marriage, and essentially, while I am uncomfortable with the idea of it, I question how natural homosexuality really is. Gays and lesbians claim they are born that way, but I do not believe humans are born sexual. We learn our sexual behaviors as we grow up, many times determined in and by the environment in which we are brought up. Though there are exceptions. But children are not born wanting to have sex with one another, that is something we crave as we age and our hormones are released throughout our bodies. And when I view this through an evolutionary standpoint, since the dawn of time, humans of the opposite sex have come together to reproduce. Deep down we are all animals, and animals are put on this planet to carry on the species. Humans are just much more complex because we reason on such a deeper level, and we must connect very intimately with someone before we reproduce, though accidental pregnancy for unprotected sex still exists. Well clearly two individuals of the same sex as in chromosomes XX and XX and XY and XY cannot reproduce, which goes against evolution. And if homosexuality was more natural, then the instances would be much higher in our society than they are now. Like say 20% or 30% of the population homosexual, and the other 70% to 80% heterosexual. Or even more balanced 50/50. I believe that wired deep within our genetic code, we are born as animals that just like the rest wish to eventually mate with the opposite sex, but we are not born craving sex ourselves, just when the right hormones are finally released and males and females become fertile. After all we are born with specific anatomy for a reason, like a key into a lock. I hope that helps explain my views a bit further. Most assume I am approaching this issue from a religious standpoint and while I am moderately religious and I know what my religious text tells me, I find more evidence for being opposed to gay marriage in science than religion. And also, even if marriage the institution has changed over thousands of years, from one where marriages were arranged, and even in the cases in some places where marriage has been polygamous, the one thing that never changes is that marriage was and is always the union between a man and a woman, and in my eyes, true marriage is the bond between one man (XY) and one woman (XX).

I also think that anyone who supports traditional marriage should support traditional male and females roles. I mean if you want to get down to traditional marriage you need to look at what it was. We as a country in whole in no way hold up traditional marriage or shouldn't.

Actually I am someone who supports traditional marriage but is opposed to males and females following traditional gender roles. Gender roles should be thrown out the door. Gender roles and marriage have nothing to do with each other as far as I am concerned. I know many, myself included that have crossed over and done things typically reserved for the other gender before. I have no problem with that. In our society today you are not going to find many males and females that stick to their defined roles.

Traditional marrage as the united states knows it also tries to stop a person who is born both sexes from marrying. Do you support that?

Well if you are referring to those individuals who are physically/biologically born with the hormones and reproductive organs of both sexes then it would depend on the sex that individual chooses. I know most have surgeries to go with the sex they feel most comfortable as. In the end they would have to choose some sex to put down on the marriage license, and it could be the one listed on their birth certificate if they never go and change their anatomy around. I doubt even in the few states that have gay marriage that you can get away with not putting any sex at all even given that situation.

What if they don't want to choose a sex? Who says that they should have to? Why should they have to? They aren't one sex. And they may not have a "comfortable" sex. They could be gender fluid and therefore would want to stay both sexes or feel that they are both sexes gender wise. Why do you get to say that they should choose? Who are you to say that they should choose? They are born both sexes and they should be able to to stay that way if they want to. People that have tried to install laws like that have tried deciding for the people by thier chromosomes. Others have tried to do it based on thier hormones. Nothing works because it's up to them to decide thier gender and they may fell like both genders. They shouldn't have to choose for your benifit of wanting a "traditional" marrage.

People should start reconizing that there is more than one sex and that the body's gender doesn't always match up with the sex.

In fact laws like that allow parents to mutilate the genitals of their baby. Do you support parents being able to choose the gender?

What if they are intersexed and the parents do choose the gender. They choose girl because that is the easiest to make them into, but they aren't a girl. They knew that they were a man even if they didn't find this fact out. Although laws like the traditional marrage laws would prevent them from marrying another female because they were made into a female at birth? Do you support that?

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but if the parents do not feel comfortable making that decision then wait until the child is older and make the decision before puberty sets in and some of the physical changes are irreversible. But I could see the parents choosing to avoid a lot of conflict in the child's life if that the child may find that decision far too difficult to make for themselves. I would probably recommend go with the gender that is most dominate in accordance with the physical anatomy of the child, as that would mean less surgery to correct the problem. That is if the parents choose at birth, instead of waiting till the child is older and can decide for themselves which to be. But I do believe at some point the child has to decide if I am one gender or the other, because you cannot be genderless for life. I would personally prefer if the child made that decision, since there is always a chance of error in the parents choosing. As to what I do not support, I do not support two individuals of the same sex marrying, regardless of circumstances. Adjusting the laws to accommodate these individuals would be far too difficult in my opinion, because if you did not make them choose a gender then that could possibly lead the way for homosexual marriage as far as the marriage issue is concerned, and I do not agree with that one bit. Gays and lesbians would be in an outrage if you allowed those intersexed individuals an exception and not them, and while intersex may be an actual condition that is out of that individuals control, I do not believe homosexuality is natural, something you are born as, and do not deserve the marriage rights that heterosexual couples have. But as far as I am aware the instances of intersex children being born is a rather low rate. And I mean fully intersexed. If proof could be given to determine genetically that this person was born XY yet has the appearance of XX then I would consider an exception, but only if gays and lesbians were still restricted, since I consider their lifestyles a choice, whereas intersexed individuals have an actual genetic condition. But marriage between XX and XX and XY and XY to me is not natural in any way.

You didn't answer me on the issue about what if the child happened to be gender fluid. I don't think anyone should have to choose A LIFE ALTERING choice just because it may pave the way for homosexuals. SURGERY IF A BIG ******** TO DO. Even the simpliest surgeries risk DEATH OR COMPLICATIONS. Not all people will undergoe it EVEN if it is to save their LIFE. To even suggest that they HAVE to do that to choose a gender because it MAY pave the way for homosexual marrige is ludicris. You do not get to decide what happens to other people's bodies and forcing them to have a surgery just so they can get married is making them decide. You FORCE them to change just because you don't LIKE homosexuals marrying. Well I would have to say too bad. Because you nor anyone else should have the right to tell someone what they do with their bodies. For most humans thier body is their last sanctuary and I know a couple that would kill themselves if they were forced to do that. Yeah. That is right and like a bully that is heeld responsible for killing themselves I think people who make such laws should also be held responsible. That should never be right to do to someone just because they don't LIKE what people do with their lives. When they have no buisness in deciding what to do with their lives.

Not only that you talk about the accomidation of marrage to fit them, but you want to FORCE them to ACCOMIDATE to marrage that you define. Which isn't right. A person's body is as far as I'm concerned is the only santuary a person has. By forcing them to choose a gender rather then letting them decide you violate that santuary just because you don't like homosexual marrage.

I know I'm getting all bothered by you, but this is an issue that is strong with me. I have a physical deformity. I know that people can't help the way they are born at all. They shouldn't have to change to please people. Which is exactly what you are doing to intersexed people when you make them choose a gender. You are forcing them to please you and your definition of marrage just because you don't like the fact that homosexuality is included in that.

> I risk losing my health coverage.
> Filing bankruptcy as a result of losing my health coverage.
> Dying because I am unable to afford my expensive medications.
> Stuck with $20,000 in student debt because he cannot fix the economy and I find a decent job.
> Credit score shot even more to hell and no chance at home ownership.
> I can kiss ever having a family goodbye without a stable job to support them.
> My future children and grandchildren get suck paying off our massive debt because Obama will make it even bigger (if i can even have a family).
> We may very well enter Word War III with Iran.
> Inflation continues increasing food and gas prices to astronomical levels.
> The entire economy of the United States collapses and we become the second Greece.
> China will overtake us as the world's sole superpower.

I could go on and on. Obama being re-elected is detrimental to not only my future but the future of the United States.

I wanted hope and got ******** by what Obama calls 'change'. Some radical supporters in this forum actually believe he went through with all his promises, but last I checked he didn't promise to make America worse.

Absolutely not, however with the health-care bill he was able to give us some of what he originally promised.

Just go out and say it, unemployment went up and the economy is shot more than what it already was four years ago.

You're completely wrong.
Unemployment is actually still about the same though slightly improved. UNEMPLOYMENT was 10% 2010 now it's about 8.2%

The recession in 08 which bush caused, caused the unemployment to go up in the years that followed.

I'm sorry, I know you're getting a lot of comments about your stance on same sex couples getting the same legal rights as opposite sex couples, but I am a bit confused by your reasoning. Someone a while back asked you why you oppose the same legal rights being given to two men or two women, and your answer read to me as "I am against it because I don't like the idea of it. It's been this way for a long time and I don't like the idea of the law changing to include more people."
I'm sure I'm just not reading it right, or something. Can you try to explain your stance with some reasons that can't be summed up as "I don't like the idea because I don't like the idea." ?

That's alright. I have had to go back and forth on this issue more so than any other in my lifetime, which I guess is kinda strange since I'm usually not a social issues person even if I agree with socially conservative positions. But to explain, and I agree my earlier explanation was rather vague, but everything explodes when I give my in-depth answer as to why I am opposed to gay marriage, and essentially, while I am uncomfortable with the idea of it, I question how natural homosexuality really is. Gays and lesbians claim they are born that way, but I do not believe humans are born sexual. We learn our sexual behaviors as we grow up, many times determined in and by the environment in which we are brought up. Though there are exceptions. But children are not born wanting to have sex with one another, that is something we crave as we age and our hormones are released throughout our bodies. And when I view this through an evolutionary standpoint, since the dawn of time, humans of the opposite sex have come together to reproduce. Deep down we are all animals, and animals are put on this planet to carry on the species. Humans are just much more complex because we reason on such a deeper level, and we must connect very intimately with someone before we reproduce, though accidental pregnancy for unprotected sex still exists. Well clearly two individuals of the same sex as in chromosomes XX and XX and XY and XY cannot reproduce, which goes against evolution. And if homosexuality was more natural, then the instances would be much higher in our society than they are now. Like say 20% or 30% of the population homosexual, and the other 70% to 80% heterosexual. Or even more balanced 50/50. I believe that wired deep within our genetic code, we are born as animals that just like the rest wish to eventually mate with the opposite sex, but we are not born craving sex ourselves, just when the right hormones are finally released and males and females become fertile. After all we are born with specific anatomy for a reason, like a key into a lock. I hope that helps explain my views a bit further. Most assume I am approaching this issue from a religious standpoint and while I am moderately religious and I know what my religious text tells me, I find more evidence for being opposed to gay marriage in science than religion.

I'll be honest, I skimmed over this part because I'm tired and I've heard it all before. I'm not going to debate the origin of sexuality with you because I doubt I'll change your viewpoint no matter that I say. If I'm wrong in that regard, and you're open to statistics and data and such, let me know and I'll discuss it a bit more. I'm very invested in learning about this as a former bio major psych minor as well as a transsexual man engaged to another man.
I just want to move on to the reason I cut this part of your reply off. It has nothing to do with marriage. Assuming being gay was a conscious choice that some human make (hint: it's not), nothing you've said here has a single thing to do with marriage. Neither past, nor present representation of marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with what you do in your bedroom and if you have genetic offspring. Marriage was initially about property (land, objects, and people), and recently in our modern definition, it's about love. Neither of these things are affected negatively if the sexual chromosomal makeup of the people entering the contract read as XX with XY or not.

Quote:

And also, even if marriage the institution has changed over thousands of years, from one where marriages were arranged, and even in the cases in some places where marriage has been polygamous, the one thing that never changes is that marriage was and is always the union between a man and a woman, and in my eyes, true marriage is the bond between one man (XY) and one woman (XX).

Actually, the poly marriages were between man and women, so by definition they weren't "always the union between a man and a woman". Also, I believe it was the ancient Greek (or else Romans, I always confuse specifics of their civilizations) who allowed same sex marriage. Not to mention a hand full of first world countries allow same sex marriage. So, unless you're talking specifically in the USA, there is no "was and is always the union between and man and a woman".
Even putting that aside, again let's pretend that since the beginning of time marriage has always been man plus woman the end. Why should that stop us from adapting to current times? Do you think that "no law should ever be changed because it was never anything other than X"? Should we have not outlawed slavery because there's history of slaves being used for hard labor?

I just don't understand why you think I should not be allowed, by law, to enter into the same contract with the man I love as you can with the man you love, simply because on a piece of paper in some government building it says "M" instead of "F" next to my name.

Traditional marrage as the united states knows it also tries to stop a person who is born both sexes from marrying. Do you support that?

Well if you are referring to those individuals who are physically/biologically born with the hormones and reproductive organs of both sexes then it would depend on the sex that individual chooses. I know most have surgeries to go with the sex they feel most comfortable as. In the end they would have to choose some sex to put down on the marriage license, and it could be the one listed on their birth certificate if they never go and change their anatomy around. I doubt even in the few states that have gay marriage that you can get away with not putting any sex at all even given that situation.

What if they don't want to choose a sex? Who says that they should have to? Why should they have to? They aren't one sex. And they may not have a "comfortable" sex. They could be gender fluid and therefore would want to stay both sexes or feel that they are both sexes gender wise. Why do you get to say that they should choose? Who are you to say that they should choose? They are born both sexes and they should be able to to stay that way if they want to. People that have tried to install laws like that have tried deciding for the people by thier chromosomes. Others have tried to do it based on thier hormones. Nothing works because it's up to them to decide thier gender and they may fell like both genders. They shouldn't have to choose for your benifit of wanting a "traditional" marrage.

People should start reconizing that there is more than one sex and that the body's gender doesn't always match up with the sex.

In fact laws like that allow parents to mutilate the genitals of their baby. Do you support parents being able to choose the gender?

What if they are intersexed and the parents do choose the gender. They choose girl because that is the easiest to make them into, but they aren't a girl. They knew that they were a man even if they didn't find this fact out. Although laws like the traditional marrage laws would prevent them from marrying another female because they were made into a female at birth? Do you support that?

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but if the parents do not feel comfortable making that decision then wait until the child is older and make the decision before puberty sets in and some of the physical changes are irreversible. But I could see the parents choosing to avoid a lot of conflict in the child's life if that the child may find that decision far too difficult to make for themselves. I would probably recommend go with the gender that is most dominate in accordance with the physical anatomy of the child, as that would mean less surgery to correct the problem. That is if the parents choose at birth, instead of waiting till the child is older and can decide for themselves which to be. But I do believe at some point the child has to decide if I am one gender or the other, because you cannot be genderless for life. I would personally prefer if the child made that decision, since there is always a chance of error in the parents choosing. As to what I do not support, I do not support two individuals of the same sex marrying, regardless of circumstances. Adjusting the laws to accommodate these individuals would be far too difficult in my opinion, because if you did not make them choose a gender then that could possibly lead the way for homosexual marriage as far as the marriage issue is concerned, and I do not agree with that one bit. Gays and lesbians would be in an outrage if you allowed those intersexed individuals an exception and not them, and while intersex may be an actual condition that is out of that individuals control, I do not believe homosexuality is natural, something you are born as, and do not deserve the marriage rights that heterosexual couples have. But as far as I am aware the instances of intersex children being born is a rather low rate. And I mean fully intersexed. If proof could be given to determine genetically that this person was born XY yet has the appearance of XX then I would consider an exception, but only if gays and lesbians were still restricted, since I consider their lifestyles a choice, whereas intersexed individuals have an actual genetic condition. But marriage between XX and XX and XY and XY to me is not natural in any way.

You didn't answer me on the issue about what if the child happened to be gender fluid. I don't think anyone should have to choose A LIFE ALTERING choice just because it may pave the way for homosexuals. SURGERY IF A BIG ******** TO DO. Even the simpliest surgeries risk DEATH OR COMPLICATIONS. Not all people will undergoe it EVEN if it is to save their LIFE. To even suggest that they HAVE to do that to choose a gender because it MAY pave the way for homosexual marrige is ludicris. You do not get to decide what happens to other people's bodies and forcing them to have a surgery just so they can get married is making them decide. You FORCE them to change just because you don't LIKE homosexuals marrying. Well I would have to say too bad. Because you nor anyone else should have the right to tell someone what they do with their bodies. For most humans thier body is their last sanctuary and I know a couple that would kill themselves if they were forced to do that. Yeah. That is right and like a bully that is heeld responsible for killing themselves I think people who make such laws should also be held responsible. That should never be right to do to someone just because they don't LIKE what people do with their lives. When they have no buisness in deciding what to do with their lives.

Not only that you talk about the accomidation of marrage to fit them, but you want to FORCE them to ACCOMIDATE to marrage that you define. Which isn't right. A person's body is as far as I'm concerned is the only santuary a person has. By forcing them to choose a gender rather then letting them decide you violate that santuary just because you don't like homosexual marrage.

I know I'm getting all bothered by you, but this is an issue that is strong with me. I have a physical deformity. I know that people can't help the way they are born at all. They shouldn't have to change to please people. Which is exactly what you are doing to intersexed people when you make them choose a gender. You are forcing them to please you and your definition of marrage just because you don't like the fact that homosexuality is included in that.

If I am not mistaken people who are gender fluid would fit more under the LGBT umbrella so I would just group them together with other LGBTs. Unless they can prove medically that there is am imbalance such that exists with intersexed individuals. As harsh as it might sound if those individuals do not wish to eventually choose a specific gender then they will just never get married I guess. To me, it only makes logical sense to eventually choose one or the other. I do not believe you can just check nothing next to gender on legal documents after all. We are all born male or female, for those individuals who are intersexed, it is just pulling out which one they really are, despite their physical abnormalities. But I imagine they lean toward one gender over the other. And yes, surgery does have its complications, but surgery is common nowadays for a variety of reasons, and chances are surgery would in tell removing or altering one of the sex organs. There may be risks involved but it is not as advanced as removing a cancerous growth or an organ transplant, or my eventual luck, the removal of an entire organ and have to have equipment on the outside replace those organ functions. But none of this has anything to do with conforming to my traditionalist views. If I am not mistaken, under United States law, we have a law known as DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which specifies that only the marriage between one man and one woman is federally recognized. And you also forget that surgery does not have to be an option, because if hormones are supplemented at the onset of puberty then the body will develop according to the hormones anyways. And that is true. The United States Government determines who legally is allowed to marry on the federal level, and parents have the option to decide their child's gender in the case of an intersexed child. It is not mine. But so far the law is on my side when it comes to all of this. No laws prevent intersexed children from being swayed to one gender or the other, no laws allow them to be listed as genderless, or marry who they want. So while I may not be telling anyone anything the government does that for us, so no need to fuss at me over all of that. I have no problems with the laws on the books currently, though I do wish DOMA was expanded and a Federal Marriage Amendment put into the United States Constitution forever ending this issue.

And I mentioned that accommodation because it seemed to drive more at what you were getting at with your example, of an intersexed individual actually being a man (XY) but was altered to appear as a woman but wanted to marry a woman (XX). Really, what are the odds that an intersexed individual would choose a same sex (XX & XX) or (XY & XY) option? Chances are if an intersexed individual was physically altetered to the wrong gender physically they would have a physical attraction to members of the opposite sex, regardless of the mistaken. So in that case most intersexed individuals would be able to happily marry just as anyone else, because genetically they are the opposite sex, even with the physical mix up. That would not cause any major changes to the laws that already define marriage as XY & XX.

Which is why if this is stressing you out you ought as well not continue debating this with me. I too am strong in my beliefs (with no intention on changing them) and I too have a physical condition, a debilitating disease that I had no control over whether I developed it or not. If you are like me then heated debate and stress causes your illness to flare up too. I saw on your profile you have Tourette's. I have Crohn's Disease.

You would be correct about that. My views are pretty much set in stone, to where no one will be changing my viewpoints. But as someone who use to be an aspiring astrophysicist, there are many who do not like my scientific views on a whole range of topics, particularly when it comes to the origins of evolution and sex. My view of homosexuality was a bit different a few years ago, but homosexuals and LGBT individuals have changed my opinions of them and after thinking I was transgendered for awhile, I changed my thinking on all of this, once I relinquished any gender issues I had in the past. I have a deep grudge against LGBT individuals for some past occurrences which have no doubt hardened my opinions of them, not that I was not skeptical of them in the first place. But moving on, there is no need to bring in data and statistics. I spend most of my day viewing statistics and chances are I will find something wrong with it and we will get nowhere.
I suppose you could argue that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with marriage but it does describe how we as humans interact with one another in order to carry on our species, and clearly, at least as far as I am concerned, homosexuality goes against the biological laws that govern us. And yes, I mentioned that the definition of what marriage is has changed over time, but that the genders involved in marriage have not. I do not remember a man bartering his son to be married to another man's son after all.

True, but that did not mean that the members of the same-sex engaged in activities with one another, just that a man had more than one wife by his side. I am not sure about the Romans but the Greek Athenians were very much into ***** between older men and young boys so it may very well have been that group that would have condoned same-sex relations, but for a reason we can all agree by any societies standards is "immoral". At least I know of no one who condones *****. And if I am not mistaken it was Roman Emperor Caligula who would engage in bestiality (sex with animals). Both the Roman and Greek Athenian societies engaged in behaviors no modern society would accept nowadays, so if they did accept same-sex couples then that is not a high standard to be held too, but is quite the contrary. And I am referring to the United States. Some countries have legalized same-sex marriage but those are societies that lean very much leftist on the political spectrum and hardly a consensus of all demographics. The right and center in those countries are also leftist (especially by American standards).
And why we do not adapt given that scenario, is because we do not adapt the laws to accommodate a demographic which in my opinion is more of a trend of the past decade. And besides, just because murders may be up in a particular area, does not mean you legalize murder. Some destructive behaviors in society do not need to be condoned any further in my opinion. And as far as I am concerned marriage is too precious an institution to "adapt". When I finally do get married, I do not want the marriage with my future wife (and despite the avatar I am a guy) compared with that of members of the same sex. That to me pollutes and distorts what marriage is. The bond between a man and a woman is not the same as a bond between members of the same sex. Members of the opposite sex are distinctively different, and different for a reason. The two halves of humanity joined together for a greater purpose in society. As for slavery, slavery was atrocious, and letting such an institution ever flourish was a mistake on the part of mankind, because it was nothing but pure oppression and the absence of freedom.

I could say the same of same-sex couples. Why do they want to change marriage? This issue is a complicated one, one that has split the United States in half, and only a handful of states have yet to place any laws on the books regarding this. But for people like me, we value marriage, and believe that homosexuals who are choosing that lifestyle are trying to force that upon everyone else and distort marriage and make it into something it is not. Our society has become too open when it comes to sexuality. This really just breaks down to our subconscious. Conservative-minded individuals are more inclined to protect the past and tradition, and avoid certain changes, while liberal-minded individuals are more likely to seek "social progress" and love change, and the destruction of tradition. Anatomically speaking our brains are wired one way or the other, and as a result we choose beliefs that others may find strange or hard to understand.

You would be correct about that. My views are pretty much set in stone, to where no one will be changing my viewpoints. But as someone who use to be an aspiring astrophysicist, there are many who do not like my scientific views on a whole range of topics, particularly when it comes to the origins of evolution and sex. My view of homosexuality was a bit different a few years ago, but homosexuals and LGBT individuals have changed my opinions of them and after thinking I was transgendered for awhile, I changed my thinking on all of this, once I relinquished any gender issues I had in the past. I have a deep grudge against LGBT individuals for some past occurrences which have no doubt hardened my opinions of them, not that I was not skeptical of them in the first place. But moving on, there is no need to bring in data and statistics. I spend most of my day viewing statistics and chances are I will find something wrong with it and we will get nowhere.
I suppose you could argue that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with marriage but it does describe how we as humans interact with one another in order to carry on our species, and clearly, at least as far as I am concerned, homosexuality goes against the biological laws that govern us. And yes, I mentioned that the definition of what marriage is has changed over time, but that the genders involved in marriage have not. I do not remember a man bartering his son to be married to another man's son after all.

True, but that did not mean that the members of the same-sex engaged in activities with one another, just that a man had more than one wife by his side. I am not sure about the Romans but the Greek Athenians were very much into ***** between older men and young boys so it may very well have been that group that would have condoned same-sex relations, but for a reason we can all agree by any societies standards is "immoral". At least I know of no one who condones *****. And if I am not mistaken it was Roman Emperor Caligula who would engage in bestiality (sex with animals). Both the Roman and Greek Athenian societies engaged in behaviors no modern society would accept nowadays, so if they did accept same-sex couples then that is not a high standard to be held too, but is quite the contrary. And I am referring to the United States. Some countries have legalized same-sex marriage but those are societies that lean very much leftist on the political spectrum and hardly a consensus of all demographics. The right and center in those countries are also leftist (especially by American standards).
And why we do not adapt given that scenario, is because we do not adapt the laws to accommodate a demographic which in my opinion is more of a trend of the past decade. And besides, just because murders may be up in a particular area, does not mean you legalize murder. Some destructive behaviors in society do not need to be condoned any further in my opinion. And as far as I am concerned marriage is too precious an institution to "adapt". When I finally do get married, I do not want the marriage with my future wife (and despite the avatar I am a guy) compared with that of members of the same sex. That to me pollutes and distorts what marriage is. The bond between a man and a woman is not the same as a bond between members of the same sex. Members of the opposite sex are distinctively different, and different for a reason. The two halves of humanity joined together for a greater purpose in society. As for slavery, slavery was atrocious, and letting such an institution ever flourish was a mistake on the part of mankind, because it was nothing but pure oppression and the absence of freedom.

I could say the same of same-sex couples. Why do they want to change marriage? This issue is a complicated one, one that has split the United States in half, and only a handful of states have yet to place any laws on the books regarding this. But for people like me, we value marriage, and believe that homosexuals who are choosing that lifestyle are trying to force that upon everyone else and distort marriage and make it into something it is not. Our society has become too open when it comes to sexuality. This really just breaks down to our subconscious. Conservative-minded individuals are more inclined to protect the past and tradition, and avoid certain changes, while liberal-minded individuals are more likely to seek "social progress" and love change, and the destruction of tradition. Anatomically speaking our brains are wired one way or the other, and as a result we choose beliefs that others may find strange or hard to understand.

I must say, your post was very hard for me to read. You once thought yourself transgendered, and were for whatever reason jaded by the LGBT community, so now you view any relation to being LGBT as a straight-up choice. Furthermore, you state bluntly that "The bond between a man and a woman is not the same as a bond between members of the same sex" and that a same-sex relationship is "destructive behavior". I can tell you from experience, thought you're not likely to believe it as any sort of truth, that the bond I share with my male fiance is the same I felt with my female ex.
It's sad that you are so deeply rooted in hate that I can not convey to you that there's even a chance we do not choose this. There are so many things I could talk to you about, from homosexuality in other animal species to the physical brain make up of a transgendered individual being that of their mental gender and not of their born sex. We could discuss so much, but instead you choose to look down upon an entire group of people who have existed in every society since their inception, and liken them to murderers, simply because they love another man (or another woman) and make some vague statement about their love cheapening the "tradition" of marriage, somehow cheapening your own love to your (future) partner.
If your future partner were to realize they are transgendered later in life, would you ridicule them? Would their mental gender instantly change the bond you felt for the years preceding that acknowledgment?

If your future partner were to realize they are transgendered later in life, would you ridicule them? Would their mental gender instantly change the bond you felt for the years preceding that acknowledgment?

To answer your question, if my future partner were to realize they were transgender later in life I would not ridicule them, but I would however end my relationship with them. I have no desire to be with another male, only a female, so if they were truly male then my connection with them would be broken pretty instantly. The thought of being with a male repulses me. I do not find masculinity attractive or appealing. My one regret would have been that I wasted all of my time with that person to find out they were deceiving me all along, when I could have been with someone I a meant to be with. I only have partners who are heterosexual. I've had people of trans orientation hit on me before and I had to let them down as nice as possible that I am only attracted to biologically born females and not trans individuals. Some people are not willing to engage in activity with members of the same sex after all, regardless of the circumstances.

> I risk losing my health coverage.
> Filing bankruptcy as a result of losing my health coverage.
> Dying because I am unable to afford my expensive medications.
> Stuck with $20,000 in student debt because he cannot fix the economy and I find a decent job.
> Credit score shot even more to hell and no chance at home ownership.
> I can kiss ever having a family goodbye without a stable job to support them.
> My future children and grandchildren get suck paying off our massive debt because Obama will make it even bigger (if i can even have a family).
> We may very well enter Word War III with Iran.
> Inflation continues increasing food and gas prices to astronomical levels.
> The entire economy of the United States collapses and we become the second Greece.
> China will overtake us as the world's sole superpower.

I could go on and on. Obama being re-elected is detrimental to not only my future but the future of the United States.

Traditional marrage as the united states knows it also tries to stop a person who is born both sexes from marrying. Do you support that?

Well if you are referring to those individuals who are physically/biologically born with the hormones and reproductive organs of both sexes then it would depend on the sex that individual chooses. I know most have surgeries to go with the sex they feel most comfortable as. In the end they would have to choose some sex to put down on the marriage license, and it could be the one listed on their birth certificate if they never go and change their anatomy around. I doubt even in the few states that have gay marriage that you can get away with not putting any sex at all even given that situation.

What if they don't want to choose a sex? Who says that they should have to? Why should they have to? They aren't one sex. And they may not have a "comfortable" sex. They could be gender fluid and therefore would want to stay both sexes or feel that they are both sexes gender wise. Why do you get to say that they should choose? Who are you to say that they should choose? They are born both sexes and they should be able to to stay that way if they want to. People that have tried to install laws like that have tried deciding for the people by thier chromosomes. Others have tried to do it based on thier hormones. Nothing works because it's up to them to decide thier gender and they may fell like both genders. They shouldn't have to choose for your benifit of wanting a "traditional" marrage.

People should start reconizing that there is more than one sex and that the body's gender doesn't always match up with the sex.

In fact laws like that allow parents to mutilate the genitals of their baby. Do you support parents being able to choose the gender?

What if they are intersexed and the parents do choose the gender. They choose girl because that is the easiest to make them into, but they aren't a girl. They knew that they were a man even if they didn't find this fact out. Although laws like the traditional marrage laws would prevent them from marrying another female because they were made into a female at birth? Do you support that?

I guess it would depend on the circumstances, but if the parents do not feel comfortable making that decision then wait until the child is older and make the decision before puberty sets in and some of the physical changes are irreversible. But I could see the parents choosing to avoid a lot of conflict in the child's life if that the child may find that decision far too difficult to make for themselves. I would probably recommend go with the gender that is most dominate in accordance with the physical anatomy of the child, as that would mean less surgery to correct the problem. That is if the parents choose at birth, instead of waiting till the child is older and can decide for themselves which to be. But I do believe at some point the child has to decide if I am one gender or the other, because you cannot be genderless for life. I would personally prefer if the child made that decision, since there is always a chance of error in the parents choosing. As to what I do not support, I do not support two individuals of the same sex marrying, regardless of circumstances. Adjusting the laws to accommodate these individuals would be far too difficult in my opinion, because if you did not make them choose a gender then that could possibly lead the way for homosexual marriage as far as the marriage issue is concerned, and I do not agree with that one bit. Gays and lesbians would be in an outrage if you allowed those intersexed individuals an exception and not them, and while intersex may be an actual condition that is out of that individuals control, I do not believe homosexuality is natural, something you are born as, and do not deserve the marriage rights that heterosexual couples have. But as far as I am aware the instances of intersex children being born is a rather low rate. And I mean fully intersexed. If proof could be given to determine genetically that this person was born XY yet has the appearance of XX then I would consider an exception, but only if gays and lesbians were still restricted, since I consider their lifestyles a choice, whereas intersexed individuals have an actual genetic condition. But marriage between XX and XX and XY and XY to me is not natural in any way.

You didn't answer me on the issue about what if the child happened to be gender fluid. I don't think anyone should have to choose A LIFE ALTERING choice just because it may pave the way for homosexuals. SURGERY IF A BIG ******** TO DO. Even the simpliest surgeries risk DEATH OR COMPLICATIONS. Not all people will undergoe it EVEN if it is to save their LIFE. To even suggest that they HAVE to do that to choose a gender because it MAY pave the way for homosexual marrige is ludicris. You do not get to decide what happens to other people's bodies and forcing them to have a surgery just so they can get married is making them decide. You FORCE them to change just because you don't LIKE homosexuals marrying. Well I would have to say too bad. Because you nor anyone else should have the right to tell someone what they do with their bodies. For most humans thier body is their last sanctuary and I know a couple that would kill themselves if they were forced to do that. Yeah. That is right and like a bully that is heeld responsible for killing themselves I think people who make such laws should also be held responsible. That should never be right to do to someone just because they don't LIKE what people do with their lives. When they have no buisness in deciding what to do with their lives.

Not only that you talk about the accomidation of marrage to fit them, but you want to FORCE them to ACCOMIDATE to marrage that you define. Which isn't right. A person's body is as far as I'm concerned is the only santuary a person has. By forcing them to choose a gender rather then letting them decide you violate that santuary just because you don't like homosexual marrage.

I know I'm getting all bothered by you, but this is an issue that is strong with me. I have a physical deformity. I know that people can't help the way they are born at all. They shouldn't have to change to please people. Which is exactly what you are doing to intersexed people when you make them choose a gender. You are forcing them to please you and your definition of marrage just because you don't like the fact that homosexuality is included in that.

If I am not mistaken people who are gender fluid would fit more under the LGBT umbrella so I would just group them together with other LGBTs. Unless they can prove medically that there is am imbalance such that exists with intersexed individuals. As harsh as it might sound if those individuals do not wish to eventually choose a specific gender then they will just never get married I guess. To me, it only makes logical sense to eventually choose one or the other. I do not believe you can just check nothing next to gender on legal documents after all. We are all born male or female, for those individuals who are intersexed, it is just pulling out which one they really are, despite their physical abnormalities. But I imagine they lean toward one gender over the other. And yes, surgery does have its complications, but surgery is common nowadays for a variety of reasons, and chances are surgery would in tell removing or altering one of the sex organs. There may be risks involved but it is not as advanced as removing a cancerous growth or an organ transplant, or my eventual luck, the removal of an entire organ and have to have equipment on the outside replace those organ functions. But none of this has anything to do with conforming to my traditionalist views. If I am not mistaken, under United States law, we have a law known as DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which specifies that only the marriage between one man and one woman is federally recognized. And you also forget that surgery does not have to be an option, because if hormones are supplemented at the onset of puberty then the body will develop according to the hormones anyways. And that is true. The United States Government determines who legally is allowed to marry on the federal level, and parents have the option to decide their child's gender in the case of an intersexed child. It is not mine. But so far the law is on my side when it comes to all of this. No laws prevent intersexed children from being swayed to one gender or the other, no laws allow them to be listed as genderless, or marry who they want. So while I may not be telling anyone anything the government does that for us, so no need to fuss at me over all of that. I have no problems with the laws on the books currently, though I do wish DOMA was expanded and a Federal Marriage Amendment put into the United States Constitution forever ending this issue.

And I mentioned that accommodation because it seemed to drive more at what you were getting at with your example, of an intersexed individual actually being a man (XY) but was altered to appear as a woman but wanted to marry a woman (XX). Really, what are the odds that an intersexed individual would choose a same sex (XX & XX) or (XY & XY) option? Chances are if an intersexed individual was physically altetered to the wrong gender physically they would have a physical attraction to members of the opposite sex, regardless of the mistaken. So in that case most intersexed individuals would be able to happily marry just as anyone else, because genetically they are the opposite sex, even with the physical mix up. That would not cause any major changes to the laws that already define marriage as XY & XX.

Which is why if this is stressing you out you ought as well not continue debating this with me. I too am strong in my beliefs (with no intention on changing them) and I too have a physical condition, a debilitating disease that I had no control over whether I developed it or not. If you are like me then heated debate and stress causes your illness to flare up too. I saw on your profile you have Tourette's. I have Crohn's Disease.

I have touretts because of people like you literally. You stick your nose in where it doesn't belong and you force people to have medicine or surgery to make them right. If adhd medication hadn't been forced on me by society I wouldn't of had the trouble that I have today. Adhd medicine caused or made my touretts worse. Which is why I hate society choosing what people do in their with their private lives so long as it isn't hurting anyone else or themselves significantly and you don't seem to like that. You stick your nose in where it doesn't belong and I don't like that people do that. Currently the law supports you, but society is changing. Gay marrage is being allowed in certain states. I hope that the trend continues to follow. It gives me hope that society is wising up because society is severely messed up when it forces people to follow the normal. (When they aren't significantly hurting themselves or another person.)